-22. The Commission submitted the application for the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero. 3. The facts described by the Commission in the application supposedly occurred between May and August 1998 and refer to the State’s alleged refusal to provide Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero with all the information they requested from the Foreign Investment Committee on the forestry company Trillium and the Río Condor Project, a deforestation project to be executed in Chile’s Region XII that “c[ould] be prejudicial to the environment and to the sustainable development of Chile.” The Commission stated that this refusal occurred without the State “providing any valid justification under Chilean law” and, supposedly, they “were not granted an effective judicial remedy to contest a violation of the right of access to information”; in addition, they “were not ensured the rights of access to information and to judicial protection, and there were no mechanisms guaranteeing the right of access to public information.” 4. The Commission requested that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation indicated in the application. Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the body of the inter-American system. II JURISDICTION 5. The Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, because Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. On December 17, 1998, a group composed of the “Clínica Jurídica de Interés Público” of the Universidad Diego Portales; the Chilean organizations “FORJA,” the “Terram Foundation” and “Corporación la Morada”; the Instituto de Defensa Legal of Peru; the “Fundación Poder Ciudadano” and the Asociación para los Derechos Civiles (Argentine organizations); and Baldo Prokurica Prokurica, Oswaldo Palma Flores, Guido Girardo Lavín and Leopoldo Sánchez Grunert, submitted a petition to the Commission. 7. On October 10, 2003, the Commission adopted Report No. 60/03 declaring the case admissible. On November 11, 2003, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. 8. On March 7, 2005, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted Report No. 31/05, in which it concluded that Chile had “violated the rights of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero of access to

Select target paragraph3